Reconceptualising organisational collaborations in social science doctoral education

Previous articleNext article FreeThe Life and Career of Matthew O. HowardJeffrey M. JensonJeffrey M. JensonUniversity of Denver Search for more articles by this author PDFPDF PLUSFull Text Add to favoritesDownload CitationTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints Share onFacebookTwitterLinked InRedditEmailQR Code SectionsMoreMatthew O. HowardView Large ImageDownload PowerPointOn December 15, 2018, social work and the Journal of the Society for Social Work and Research (JSSWR) lost one of its most prolific scholars, outstanding teachers, and thoughtful mentors in recent memory. Matthew O. Howard, PhD—the Frank A. Daniels Distinguished Professor of Human Services Policy Information and associate dean for doctoral education in the School of Social Work at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill—passed away following a lengthy hospitalization. As an associate editor for JSSWR, Matthew had a significant impact on improving the quality and influence of the journal. He will be sorely missed by our editorial team.Matthew was a consummate scholar who possessed a singular ability to understand and conceptualize social problems of all types. His research contributed greatly to existing knowledge of the etiology, prevention, and treatment of substance abuse, alcohol dependence, and mental health disorders. And, Matthew’s provocative articles assessing the state of social work education, practice, and research set forth ideas that will affect the trajectory of social work for years to come. His passion for knowledge—conveyed quietly and effectively to countless graduate students—was felt deeply by the many lives he touched over the course of an academic career that included appointments in the Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences at the University of Washington, the Department of Psychiatry at the Oregon Health Sciences University, the George Warren Brown School of Social Work at Washington University in St. Louis, the School of Social Work and the Department of Psychiatry at the University of Michigan, and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.Matthew’s training in social work coincided with my own enrollment in the University of Washington School of Social Work doctoral program in 1984. Matthew and I became immediate and close friends during our graduate studies in Seattle, and we spent hours discussing social work, class assignments, and the research projects we worked on as doctoral students. Many of these conversations occurred in an alley coffee shop in Seattle’s University District, just a stone’s throw from the School of Social Work. Known by the employees as “Matt and Jeff,” we were treated as regulars who would sit at our customary window table for what was likely far too long. It was a time of great intellectual pursuit, and I had found the perfect colleague and friend with whom to share ideas and discuss future plans. It was the beginning of a personal friendship and professional relationship that lasted 34 years.Matthew entered doctoral education with a well-developed interest in understanding the etiology of alcohol and other substance use disorders. Over the nearly four decades that followed, he devoted his career to conducting basic and applied research aimed at ameliorating substance abuse dependence and co-occurring problems associated with alcohol and drug abuse. He became particularly well known for his basic research and intervention studies addressing the vexing problem of inhalant abuse (e.g., Howard, Balster, Cottler, Wu, & Vaughn, 2008; Howard, Bowen, Garland, Perron, & Vaughn, 2011; Howard & Jenson, 1999b). Matthew’s innovative and rigorous research in this area led to three grants from the National Institute on Drug Abuse and to widespread recognition as one of the world’s foremost experts on inhalant abuse. In recent years, Matthew extended his work to testing mindfulness-oriented interventions for people with chronic pain and opioid misuse. His coinvestigator in much of this work was Eric Garland, professor and associate dean for research in the University of Utah College of Social Work. Eric, a former student of Matthew’s at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, describes some of the important lessons he learned under Matthew’s tutelage in an accompanying article in this issue (Garland, 2019).Matthew also made significant contributions to social work education and research. In the Aaron Rosen Lecture at the 2015 Annual Conference of the Society for Social Work and Research, Matthew traced key developments in social work during the past 30 years and reflected on a vision of the field that stretched to 2044—30 years into the future (Howard & Garland, 2015). The ideas he shared in this lecture have provided a useful framework for assessing the relatively recent history of social work and addressing the challenges in educating master’s-level practitioners and doctoral students in the future. Matthew delivered a similarly thought-provoking lecture on the current state and future of social work doctoral education at the 2016 Annual Conference of the Group for the Advancement of Doctoral Education. Ideas presented in his lectures were coupled with action. One such example is illustrated by Matthew’s early development of a University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill doctoral-level course on conducting systematic reviews. Students in this class often produced publishable papers as a result of Matthew’s fastidious attention to breadth and quality. In earlier work at the Brown School of Social Work at Washington University in St. Louis, Matthew and colleagues advanced the idea of evidence-based practice as a paradigm for training MSW social work practitioners (Howard, McMillen, & Pollio, 2003). Enola Proctor, the Shanti K. Khinduka Distinguished Professor in the Brown School of Social Work at Washington University in St. Louis, was a colleague of Matthew’s at the time. She remembers Matthew as… a brilliant scholar and dear person. Highly regarded for his excellence in the classroom at the Brown School, he was demanding yet was a frequent winner of student-elected teaching awards. Matthew used his seemingly boundless energy to better the fields of addiction research and social work practice. He had my highest respect and unending affection. His passing is a tremendous loss to our field and community of scholars [and] saddens me deeply. (E. Proctor, personal communication, January 9, 2019)In 1999, Matthew and I had the good fortune to guest edit a special issue of Research on Social Work Practice that explored the utility of clinical practice guidelines for social work practice (Howard & Jenson, 1999a). Collectively, Matthew’s lectures and published papers assessing the state of social work education and practice stimulated debate and produced tangible curricula changes in schools across the country.A prolific writer, Matthew published more than 250 peer-reviewed papers in his career. His written work also included 40 book reviews, editorials, and government reports. Matthew’s h-index of 55 and nearly 9,000 citations of his work to date illustrate just how much his scholarship was valued by colleagues. His written contributions will be recognized and used by practitioners, policymakers, and researchers for decades to come.Matthew was a fellow and a board member of the American Academy of Social Work and Social Welfare and a fellow of the Society for Social Work and Research. A proponent of interdisciplinary work, he also was a faculty research fellow in the Cecil G. Sheps Center for Health Services Research at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill at the time of his passing. Matthew’s devotion to empirical research and scholarship is widely recognized. However, what may be most impressive about Matthew’s career is the recognition he received as both a scholar and a teacher. He was awarded eight outstanding teaching and mentoring awards from students and colleagues at Washington University in St. Louis and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Two of Matthew’s doctoral students at North Carolina (Eric Garland, University of Utah; and Carrie Pettus-Davis, Florida State University) received Doctoral Fellow Awards from the Society for Social Work and Research. Matthew connected with his students by combining high scientific standards with a compassionate approach to helping people succeed. He was soft-spoken, but his ideas and words carried great weight and influence.Matthew’s service to the fields of social work and addiction was also exemplary. He reviewed manuscripts for more than 60 different academic journals in his career. He was on the editorial boards of more than 50 journals—including serving a JSSWR associate editor for the past several years—and he previously served as editor-in-chief of the Journal of Social Service Research, Social Work Research, and the Journal of Addictive Diseases. Matthew also was vice president and served on the Society for Social Work and Research Board of Directors from 2005 to 2008.The task of summarizing the life and career of a prolific and impactful scholar, teacher, and mentor like Matthew is daunting. Mark Fraser, professor emeritus at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and the founding editor of JSSWR, was a longtime friend, collaborator, and colleague. Reflecting on Matthew’s career, he recalls,As a scholar and a teacher, Matthew was eloquent and encyclopedic. Students flocked to his classes. A gentle spirit who treasured collaboration with others, his greatest joys came in exploring new ideas and reading recent research. In the profession as a thought leader, Matthew was a tour de force. At once, he was creative, insightful, sensitive, critical, and thorough. Matthew was—quite simply—incomparable. (M. Fraser, personal communication, January 8, 2019)Tangible accomplishments like those summarized here do not tell the complete story of a person. Matthew had an uncanny ability to effectively express his strong personal beliefs and ethical values in everyday interactions with friends and colleagues. He had a deep interest in applying the lessons gained from his own empirical work to promote fairness and equity for all people. Matthew’s invaluable input and feedback to students and colleagues about their ideas, papers, or projects came with great civility and kindness. He was an insatiable reader whose knowledge extended to topics well beyond social work or the addictions. In this sense, one could discuss a wide range of topics with Matthew with the preordained understanding that he had very likely already read much of what had been written on the topic. Matthew’s longstanding practice of underscoring written text with yellow highlighters was applied to thousands of empirical and conceptual articles and manuscripts during his career.On a personal level, Matthew enjoyed taking walks, listening to music, and reading novels and poetry. His wry sense of humor often left many of his closest friends and colleagues writhing in laughter. I was among them.JSSWR is proud to count Matthew as one of its most influential associate editors and contributors. His place as an important teacher and scholar in social work education and research is secure. Matthew’s many contributions will be discovered anew by emerging scholars for decades to come. His presence in social work and the broad field of the addictions will be missed by us all.NotesJeffrey M. Jenson, PhD, is Editor-in-Chief of the Journal of the Society for Social Work and Research and the Phillip D. & Eleanor G. Winn Endowed Professor Children and Youth at the University of Denver Graduate School of Social Work.Correspondence regarding this article should be directed to Jeffrey M. Jenson, University of Denver, 2148 S. High St., Denver, CO 80208 or via e-mail to [email protected]ReferencesGarland, E. L. (2019). Standing on the shoulders of giants: Matthew O. Howard as a mentor and his influence on the science of mindfulness as a treatment for addiction. Journal of the Society for Social Work and Research. Advance online publication. doi:10.1086/702654First citation in articleGoogle ScholarHoward, M. O. (2016, March 31). Hot topics in doctoral education. Presentation at the 2016 Annual Conference of the Group for the Advancement of Doctoral Education, Chapel Hill, NC.First citation in articleGoogle ScholarHoward, M. O., Balster, R., Cottler, L. B., Wu, L., & Vaughn, M. G. (2008). Inhalant use among incarcerated adolescents: Prevalence, characteristics, and predictors of use. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 93, 197–209. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2007.08.023First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle ScholarHoward, M. O., Bowen, S., Garland, E. L., Perron, B. E., & Vaughn, M. G. (2011). Inhalant use and inhalant use disorders in the United States. Addiction Science & Clinical Practice, 6, 18–31.First citation in articleGoogle ScholarHoward, M. O., & Garland, E. L. (2015). Social work research: 2044. Journal of the Society for Social Work and Research, 6, 173–200. https://doi.org/10.1086/681099First citation in articleLinkGoogle ScholarHoward, M. O., & Jenson, J. M. (1999a). Clinical practice guidelines: Should social work develop them? Research on Social Work Practice, 9, 283–301. https://doi.org/10.1177/104973159900900302First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle ScholarHoward, M. O., & Jenson, J. M. (1999b). Inhalant use among antisocial youth: Prevalence and correlates. Addictive Behaviors, 24, 59–74. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0306-4603(98)00039-2First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle ScholarHoward, M. O., McMillen, J. C., & Pollio, D. (2003). Teaching evidence-based practice: Toward a new paradigm for social work education. Research on Social Work Practice, 13, 234–259. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049731502250404First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle Scholar Previous articleNext article DetailsFiguresReferencesCited by Journal of the Society for Social Work and Research Volume 10, Number 1Spring 2019 Published for the Society for Social Work and Research Article DOIhttps://doi.org/10.1086/702653HistoryPublished online February 04, 2019 © 2019 by the Society for Social Work and Research. All rights reserved.PDF download Crossref reports no articles citing this article.

Even if pursuing a doctorate is both emotionally challenging and rewarding, empirical research focusing on doctoral students’ academic emotions is limited. Therefore, in this study we have contributed to bridging the gap in the research on the doctoral experience by mapping the emotional landscape of doctoral experience. In addition, we have shed light on potential invariants and socio-cultural characteristics of the emotional landscape by doing a cross-country comparison between Danish and Finnish doctoral students. A total of 272 doctoral students (Danish: 145, Finnish: 127) from the field of humanities and social sciences responded to the Cross-cultural Doctoral Experience Survey. The data were both qualitatively and quantitatively analyzed, using a mixed methods approach. The results showed that the doctoral students experienced a wide range of both positive and negative emotions embedded in various activities of the doctoral experience, including supervision, scholarly community, doctoral research, development as a scholar and structures and resources. The results revealed some associations between the emotions that were experienced as well as differences between the countries.

The News of the Week article that reports on Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX) questioning the need to fund social science research at the National Science Foundation is alarming and shortsighted (“Senate panel chair asks why NSF funds social sciences,” 12 May, p. [829][1]). Social science research is at the fundamental core of basic research and has much to contribute to the economic viability of the United States. Twenty years of direct and jointly funded social and ecosystem science research at Colorado State University's Natural Resource Ecology Laboratory has produced deep insights into environmental and societal impacts of political upheaval, land use, and climate change in parts of Africa, Asia, and the Americas. Beyond greatly advancing our understanding of the coupled human-environmental system, the partnership of social and ecosystem science has brought scientists and decision-makers together to begin to develop solutions to difficult problems. Insights from the social sciences about the vulnerability, sustainability, and resilience of social and environmental systems have greatly increased our understanding of the complex interactions of the world on which we depend. The contributions of social and ecological science for data analyses associated with spatial relationships, transfer of goods and services, valuation, and decision-making processes have improved our understanding of how human activities are altering environmental systems worldwide. These findings have become the core of policy and development decisions used throughout the world. It is critical that the NSF support social science funding and that, as budget decisions are made, the social science allocation should move forward equally with increases as in other basic and applied research. Failure to do so will further hinder U.S. competitiveness in the future and will slow transfer of knowledge and usefulness to the public. [1]: /lookup/doi/10.1126/science.312.5775.829a

Contributions of M. N. Srinivas to the understanding of changing nature of caste, village and politics have been well documented and continue to be under focus several decades after his scholarly formulations on them. This article is an attempt to focus on the nature of changes that are occurring in the realm of his contributions to the field of social science research methods—especially to the tradition of intensive field research whether in rural or urban locales. Not only have the field sites’ amenability to research has undergone a major change, the institutional context in which social research is practised have radically transformed. This article is an attempt to track some such changes in both the contexts and to reflect upon the emerging challenges to social science research in general and the idea of ‘field’ research in particular. One of the questions it raises and attempts to answer is: Is sociology and social anthropology becoming more dependent on secondary data, and the source becoming a web than the field?

Addressing the policy challenges and opportunities of “Big data”

Social work education in Australia has been based in universities since the 1940s. There are now 32 higher education providers offering social work programs across Australia. The significant growth in master’s level qualifying programs in Australia, along with recent higher education policy changes, has increased the need for social work academic faculty members with doctoral qualifications. This paper presents the findings of a scoping review of literature on social work doctoral education. Despite a growing literature on social work doctoral education in international contexts, the review found that there is a lack of Australian research and evidence on social work doctoral pedagogy, the number and diversity of doctoral students, the doctoral student experience, and doctoral graduate employment intentions and outcomes. Addressing the lack of Australian research in this area would be an important step to enabling Australian social work to address future research training and capacity needs and directions. IMPLICATIONS There is a lack of research on Australian social work doctoral education and this is a neglected aspect of social work scholarship of teaching and learning (SOTL) research. Research into social work doctoral education would provide baseline information on the number and diversity of students, doctoral student experiences, graduate outcomes, and employment intentions. Development of social work SOTL about doctoral education would support future research capacity and enable the advancement of social work research knowledge and skills.

Over the years the research endeavours in social sciences have been directed towards producing profound discoveries about humankind and the society they live in. Now-a-days qualitative research has been flourishing in many fields of the social sciences. Rapid social change and the resulting diversification of life scenarios are increasingly confronting social researchers with new social contexts and perspectives. There is a specific relevance for qualitative research to the study of social contexts and life situations. This has lead to the development of several social theories and social research methods which have still continued to develop in order to understand the diverse social problems. The challenge for social scientists and researchers worldwide is to continue in the search for a unified consensus on what methodology is to be adopted for research for meeting the emerging diverse needs of humankind and the society. This thought has led to the proliferation of pluralism or multi-method research in which the researcher synthesizes multiple research methodologies in order to study social problems in a holistic way. This concept of pluralism in research has to a greater extend subverted methodological tribalism which had existed till the recent past. This paper focuses on the philosophical assumptions as guidelines to research paradigms have influenced the development of social research theory and social research methods towards pluralism. This paper intends to explore pluralism in qualitative Social Science researches as it may be applied methodologically and philosophically. In this context, the paper heeds a thought on refocusing pluralistic qualitative research in terms of its needs and demands based on the level and depth of the study undertaken. Key Terms: Qualitative research, methodological pluralism, research paradigms, philosophical assumptions

With growing attention to societal issues and implications of synthetic biology, we investigate sources of social science publication knowledge in synthetic biology and probe what might be learned by comparison with earlier rounds of social science research in nanotechnology. “Social science” research is broadly defined to include publications in conventional social science as well as humanities, law, ethics, business, and policy fields. We examine the knowledge clusters underpinning social science publications in nanotechnology and synthetic biology using a methodology based on the analysis of cited references. Our analysis finds that social science research in synthetic biology already has traction and direction, rooted in an ethical, legal, and social implications framework. However, compared with nanotechnology, social science research in synthetic biology could further explore opportunities and openings for engagement, anticipatory, and downstream application perspectives that will help to build a wider platform for insights into current and future societal impacts.

People Nice Evidence from the National Survey of Black Americans. Social Forces 71:411-30. Groves, Robert M. and Lars E. Lyberg. 1988. An Overview of Nonresponse Issues in Telephone Surveys. Pp. 191-211 in Telephone Survey Methodology, edited by R. M. Groves, P. P. Biemer, L. E. Lyberg, J. T. Massey, W. L. Nicholls II, and J. Wakesberg. New York: John Wiley and Sons. Hadaway, C. Kirk, Penny Long Marler, and Mark Chaves. 1993. What the Polls Don't Show: Closer Look at U.S. Church Attendance. American Sociological Review 58:741-52. Hertel, Bradley R. 1995. Family, and Faith. Pp. 81-121 in Work, Family, and Religion in Contemporary Society, edited by N. T. Ammerman and W. C. Roof. New York: Routledge. Kosmin, Barry A. 1991. The National Survey of Religious Identification: 1989-90 [MRDF]. New York: The Graduate School and University Center of the City University of New York [producer, distriburtor]. Kosmin, Barry A. and Seymour P. Lachman. 1993. One Nation Under God: Religion in Contemporary American Society. New York: Harmony Books. Massey, James T. and Steven L Botman. 1988. Weighting Adjustments for Random Digit Dialed Surveys. Pp. 143-60 in Telephone Survey Methodology, edited by R. M. Groves, P. P. Biemer, L. E. Lyberg, J. T. Massey, W. L. Nicholls II, and J. Wakesberg. New York: John Wiley and Sons. Miller, Warren E. and the National Election Studies (NES). 1995. American National Election Studies Cumulative Data File, 1952-1994 [MRDF]. 8th ICPSR version. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan, Center for Political Studies [producer]. Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor]. Morgan, S. Philip. 1983. A Research Note on Religion and Morality: Are Religious People Nice People? Social Forces 61:683-92. Smith, Tom W. 1991. Counting Flocks and Lost Sheep: Trends in Religious Preference Since World War II. GSS Social Change Report. No. 26, revised January 1991. Chicago, IL: National Opinion Research Center. University of North Carolina. 1996. Southern Focus Poll [MRDF]. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina, Institute for Research in Social Science [producer and distributor]. Woodberry, Robert D. 1997a. How Then Shall We Measure?: Adjusting Survey Methodology to Remove the Gap between Head-Counts and Survey Estimates of Church Attendance. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Association for Public Opinion Research, May 15-18, Norfolk, VA. Woodberry, Robert D. 1997b. 'The Missing Fifty-Percent: Accounting for the Gap between Survey Estimates and Head-Counts of Church Attendance. Master's thesis, Department of Sociology, University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, IN.

Focus groups, originally used in fields such as marketing and consumer research, are rapidly gaining popularity as a research methodology in the social sciences. It is interesting to note that most of the scholarly work on focus groups continues to come from business rather than the social sciences. Few researchers have discussed the differing purposes and goals in social science and consumer research (Ospina, 1994; Moore, 1996). Furthermore, the literature on focus group research rarely utilizes social work knowledge of group dynamics or group facilitation skills. Rather, the literature on focus groups tends to give guidelines for leading groups, telling focus group facilitators what to do and what not to do in leading such groups. We believe that these guidelines, while generally helpful, can lead to rigidity on the part of focus group leaders. We suggest that, in social work research, focus group facilitators should use their knowledge of group dynamics and the values of individualization and empathy to modify focus group rules where appropriate. This paper describes part of a qualitative study of client/worker relationships in residential mental health settings. During the course of this research, group work principles came into conflict, at times, with recommended guidelines for focus group leaders. The paper illustrates how insights gleaned from group work theory and practice can enable a researcher to break focus group rules responsibly, thus bringing greater depth to the data gathered and allowing the researcher to be more sensitive to the needs of focus group participants.

Purpose This study aims to explore how graduate students in the social sciences develop reading and note-taking routines. Design/methodology/approach Using a professional socialization framework drawing on grounded theory, this study draws on a snowball sample of 36 graduate students in the social sciences at US universities. Qualitative interviews were conducted to learn about graduate students’ reading and note-taking techniques. Findings This study uncovered how doctoral students experienced the shift from undergraduate to graduate training. Graduate school requires students to adopt new modes of reading and note-taking. However, students lacked explicit mentorship in these skills. Once they realized that the goal was to enter an academic conversation to produce knowledge, they developed new reading and note-taking routines by soliciting and implementing suggestions from advanced doctoral students and faculty mentors. Research limitations/implications The specific requirements of the individual graduate program shape students’ goals for reading and note-taking. Further examination of the relationship between graduate students’ reading and note-taking and institutional requirements is warranted with a larger sample of universities, including non-American institutions. Practical implications Graduate students benefit from explicit mentoring in reading and note-taking skills from doctoral faculty and advanced graduate students. Originality/value This study uncovers the perspectives of graduate students in the social sciences as they transition from undergraduate coursework in a doctoral program of study. This empirical, interview-based research highlights the centrality of reading and note-taking in doctoral studies.

1968a class, parental encouragement and educational aspirations. American Journal of Sociology 73:559-572. 1968b Parents' education and children's educational aspirations and achievements. American Sociological Review 33:191-209. Sexton, Patrico Cayo 1961 Education and Income. New York: Viking Press. Slater, Marian K. 1969 My son the doctor: Aspects of mobility among American Jews. American Sociological Review 34 (June) :359-373. Smith, Howard P. and Marcia Abramson 1962 Racial and family experience correlate of mobility aspiration. Journal of Negro Education 31:117-124. Stephenson, Richard M. 1957 Mobility orientation and stratification of 1,000 ninth graders. American Sociological Review 22:204-212. Strodtbeck, Fred 1958 Family interaction, values, and achievement. In Marshall Sklare (ed.), The Jews: Social Patterns of An American Group. Glencoe, Illinois: Free Press. Turner, Ralph H. 1964 The Social Context of Ambition. San Francisco: Chandler Publishing Company. Turner, Ralph H., John A. Michael and Richard P. Boyle 1966 On neighborhood context and college plans. American Sociological Review 31 (October) :698-707. U. S. Bureau of the Census 1967 School enrollment: October 1965. Population Characteristics Current Population Reports Series P-20 No. 162 (March). Uzell, 0. 1961 Occupational aspirations of Negro male high school students. Sociology and Social Research 45:202-204. Weber, Max 1958 The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, translated by Talcott Parsons. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons.

The author considers the role and place of theory in criminal justice studies. The argument is that the operation and interrogation of fundamental categories is integral to social scientific enquiry and if criminal justice studies is to resist a technocratic “protective service” orientation it must promote theorising and thinking conceptually via the texts which represent the discipline to undergraduates. Although theory is situated at the core of social science curricula, there is little or no agreement on its role or place in research and pedagogy. The dominant understanding of theory within criminal justice studies (including its sociological and criminological incarnation) is that it is something to be referred to. What is seldom emphasised in theory or methods texts is the practice of theorising. Texts that are designed to be the student’s first contact with the field of criminal justice studies, and which reflect broader attitudes toward social enquiry, seldom consider the methodological and pedagogical issues related to the production and role of analytic concepts and do not present social science as an imaginative or reflexive practice. Drawing on critical realist metatheory, this paper advances a distinction between social and sociological problems and social science and protective service toward illustrating that a social science approach to the study of criminal justice demands the operation and interrogation of analytic categories and explicit consideration of issues of epistemology and ontology. Works which seek to avoid this serve only to foster a passive rather than active engagement with their subject matter.

social science in policy making simpliciter as if there were one constant relationship between two fixed and stable entities. Instead, to address this issue sensibly, one must talk about the uses of different modes of social scientific inquiry for different kinds of policies under various circumstances. In some cases, the influence of social scientific research is direct and tangible, and the connection between the findings and the policy is easy to see. For example, the statistical and social scientific analyses of data generated by the census, the Bureau of Labor Statistics, and similar government surveys are the bases upon which a wide variety of legislative and administrative decisions are made. Similarly influential have been large-scale social surveys directed at specific policy issues, such as the studies of educational policy conducted by the sociologist James Coleman. However, in other (perhaps most) cases, the influence of social scientific research on policy is indirect-one small piece in a larger mosaic of politics, bargaining, and compromise. Occasionally, as with the Coleman studies, the findings of social scientific research are explicitly drawn upon by policy makers in the formation, implementation, or evaluation of particular policies. More often, as Charles E. Lindblom and David K. Cohen and others have taken pains to point out, the categories and theoretical models of social science have an indirect bearing on policy by providing a general background orientation within which policy makers conceptualize problems and frame policy options.' At times, the influence of social scientific work is cognitive and informational in nature; in other instances, policy makers use social science primarily for symbolic and political purposes in order to legitimate pre-established goals and strategies. This latter situation is probably inevitable in our own or any other political system, but many social scientists-particularly those who have been bloodied by their occasional forays into the political arena-find it deeply disturbing because it seems to compromise the intellectual integrity of the social sciences. Nonetheless, amid this diversity, troubling general questions persistently arise and these became a central part of our project. They concern the epistemological validity of social scientific knowledge and its applicability, the proper

Social science research has been attacked by neoliberal thinkers who allege that such research lacks economic objectives. In the face of neoliberal and positivist criteria for evaluating the social impact of social science inquiry, social science researchers are developing qualitative evaluation methodologies through which we can have direct contact with citizens. These qualitative methodologies declare our social responsibility as social researchers in addressing relevant problems, especially those affecting the most vulnerable people. From these qualitative methodologies, the most vulnerable groups are included in the assessment of the social impacts of social research. Some examples of people who have participated in this qualitative evaluation include women, youth, immigrants, and Roma organizations. Participants perceived social science researchers as being far from their social reality, but in this research, they began to overcome their skepticism that social science research can help to solve those problems affecting their everyday lives.